Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The area houses a dray land forest surrounded by dry land ecosystem. Although it is community managed, it is also a government conservation area under Kenya Forest Service management. This means that government employed foresters are not under the jurisdiction of the community.
Evidence B:Degraded rangelands in Laikipia that stil provide useful wildlife habitat
Evidence C:The EOI details the biodiversity importance of the Mukogodo National Reserve, that is a vital der-land forest in northern Laikipia, providing vital watershed services for the headwaters of the rivers in the area.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Not much s mentioned in terms of carbon sequestration. The forest is however significant as a water tower for the surrounding territory.
Evidence B:No but this is likely based on forest carbon and not soil carbon
Evidence C:Typically carbon storage for such areas is ≤ 150 CtHa as a dryland forest.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The area is partially managed under the IPLC. The conservation area draws alot from the indigenous system of governance. However, the overall authority for its sustainability largely depends on the politics controlled by the government.
Evidence B:Area managed by a CFA that is formally recognized under Kenyan lawy
Evidence C:The EOI details the joint management of the area under the new Kenyan consitutuion.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: IIt does to some extent but it does not show how this significance is utilized by the government in the overall conservation of the area and its ecosystem.
Evidence B:Not what so ever. Talks about biodiversity
Evidence C:Again - the EOI details the importance of the area to the Samburu communities.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The area faces threats from logging for fuel wood and for construction; from over grazing; expansion of agriculture; forest fires; invasive plant species; over harvesting of some species for commercial use such as sandal wood; and wild animal predators and elephant destroying water sources.
Evidence B:Interestingly the community appear to recognize the land degradation is a result of community actions and choices
Evidence C:Because of the significant downturn in tourism revenue, there are very real threats to the natural resource base. Culturally, the Samburu and Pokot will strive to maintain their cattle herds as numerous as possible rather than sell these and maintain a cash reserve. As the rains in northern Kenya have been good so far this year, this will give a false sense of security.
As far as the Mukogodo Forest, there are local threats from over hunting and subsistence extraction, but the population density is relatively how at the moment. Real threats come from commercial demands and the overexploitation for timber, mineral resources and conversion to commercial agriculture.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There is legal and policy framework governing all forest reserves in the country. However, the implementation of the policies is weal. Also the management by the forest scouts is not very effective and the communities are not guaranteed access and security.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Yes - the community association seems well established and has put in place relevant governance under the advice of Northern Rangeland Trust.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: There is government support in the management by IPLCs. but not much indigenous knowledge is utilized in forest management. There seems to be little involvement by local communities in the actual management of the forest.
Evidence B:Govt support for group ranches and trusts and conservancies - e.g., NRT. Police actively support the community law enforcement efforts
Evidence C:Yes - the devolved Kenyan constitution empowers local communities to take greater responsibility over the management of the natural resource base.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The area is not far from places where success initiatives have been undertaken led by IPLC. So it is possible to draw upon their experiences.
Evidence B:NRT has been active in the area for almost 2 decades
Evidence C:Il Ngwesi has been a epitiome of a community based natural resource management approach that has contributed significantly to conservation and community development. Join management of Laikipia District through the Laikipia Wildlife Forum has also been transformative in reconciling private and communal landuse.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The initiatives that exist are not directly aligned to the objectives of conservation pursued by the project. One is tourism related and another one is the provision of water. Northern Rangeland Trust however provide capacity building that has apotential of providing support to the project.
Evidence B:Profit sharing arrangement with a private sector tour operator. COVID-19 has effectively shut down this income stream
Evidence C:THere are several opportunities for collaboration within this and neighbouring districts
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The EOI has a lot of potential government protected and forest and wildlife scouts have little appreciation of the IPLC contribution to the management of the forest.. The objectives of the two may be similar but they are not well aligned. If there were there would be possibility of them delivering global environmental benefits.
Evidence B:Basically this is funding to keep the conservancy going when tourism revenue has collapsed because of the pandemic
Evidence C:There is a sound institutional arrangement for the community management of this project
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: There are sections of this EOI that are not very clear. There is also a lack of cohesion among the different sections.
Evidence B:Activities and desired outcomes only vaguely described in section 8
Evidence C:The EOI does the best it can in explaining the needs, but there needs to be a greater level of detail as to the “How” it will be achieved.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Although the IPLC own the conservancy, there seems to be little contribution from partnership with government for complimentarity between the conservancy and the forest to be realized.
Evidence B:As the activities and outcomes are vague it is difficult to score this. But they have staff and support from NRT
Evidence C:The review’s scale is inappropriate for the question. This proposal seems well considered, but I cannot reflect this in the score.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The range of investment proposed could be realized if they are better focused.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This is a well argued application and deserving of support to maintain community engagement in biodiversity conservation.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: There is minimal.co-financing, however tourism activities generate income for the conservancy. Oklahoma Zoo provided support for the construction of the Headquarters for the conservancy.
Evidence B:No as $ for the conservancy are largely derived from ecotourism
Evidence C:As far as I can tell there is some in-kind contributions.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Lekurruki has a total of 8,364 hactares under conservation management. For this reason, the global environmental benefits are minimal.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Mukogodo Forest is a vital habitat in the Laikipia landscape with significant environmental and ecosystem services.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The indicators of this EOI are not aligned with the objectives. Some of them seem to be misplaced.
Evidence B:See table Q11
Evidence C:Yes, this application plays directly into the traditional cultural and landuse by the Samburu and Pokot communities.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The EOI has a potential to achieve long term sustainability and future funding might be able to build upon. But the proposed project need to be thought through with the help of some successful neighbouring initiatives with similar objectives.
Evidence B:Yes assuming tourists return to Kenya
Evidence C:Yes - but this long-term vision is severally compromised by the downturn in tourism and there has been little planning for the impact and duration of a Covid-19 pandemic -like situation.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The EOI does not indicate it although by partnering with national environmental agencies and other international agencies, reflects some understanding that could be built upon.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Through the mentorship of the NRT, this group is well placed to fulfil some of the requirement of the NBSAPs at the local scale.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: One third of the personnel of the EOI are female. This is in line with the requirements as outlines by the 2010 Kenya Constitution. Both genders are also visible in different management levels of the EOI.
Evidence B:Some thinking but definitely a ways to go
Evidence C:Yes - 1/3 of the executive committee are women.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: There is potential and mention of realizable results but there is no coordination between them. It is possible that realigning objectives and indicators would produce the required results.
Evidence B:No this is classic conservancy work - effective but not innovative
Evidence C:Investing in such a group at this time of need will reap manay benefits.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The Conservancy is owned by the IPLC but they partner with national NGOs. Some national/state agencies including forest and wildlife agencies play significant roles in the conservancy.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:LCT is a sound entity for the landscape in which they are located.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: On the ground, yes the proposed project is led and run by IPLC which is relevant for the proposed work. The capacity of the IPLC may not be at the required standard, but it has potential for improvement.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:LCT is a sound entity for the landscape in which they are located.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The EOI is run by IPLC, and it has a local Trust as a partner. There are also other similar IPLC in the neighboring area which who could have helped in project design and governance.
Evidence B:See table Q20
Evidence C:They are a strong local partner in achieving conservation on the ground.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The activities as outlines seem to be realizable but they are not aligned with the indicators and desired results. This leaves some gaps in comprehending the direction of the proposed project.
Evidence B:Not explicitly described but have managed other $400K grants
Evidence C:It’s a chicken and an egg situation. If awarded this grant, LCT can look to recruit consultants and staff to fill the gaps in their capacity.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Some aspects of the proposed project are good and the fact the it is run by IPLC is commendable. However it is clear that the capacity is lacking the leadership of the project to connect the various elements of what is required in project design and management.
Evidence B:Assumed Yes as manageed other grants. But they left Q19 blank
Evidence C:I believe that they are as robust as can be expected.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The EOI does not mention any safeguards so it is possible that they are unaware of them or unaware of them to be mentioned here.
Evidence B:No
Evidence C:They will have relevant support on this front from NRT.